Some readers of this blog have asked me some questions regarding the subject and specifically how it relates to two items that recently appeared in the Shawnee Dispatch.
First of all, blogging is basically an opinion thing. It is not news reporting. A blogger may choose to mention or talk about specific things that have actually happened, but then voice their opinion about those things. It actually is more closely related to letters to the editor or editorials in newspapers.
Now, news reporting is something different. News reporting is supposed to be about verifiable factual events, without voicing an opinion by the author. Balanced. This is an altruistic concept. All reporters have the ability to "color" stories by the way in which they are worded or by leaving out certain information. This does not make them untruthful. It comes down to perception.
Let's use one of my favorite analogies (believe I've mentioned it here before). The two man race. Oh, let's say I get into a foot race with Dan Pflumm. Dan, being younger and in better shape wins. OK, now Kevin Straub asks Dan what happened and Dan replies that he won. Honest statement. Now, Jeff Meyers asks me how I did, and I respond that I came in 2d and that Dan came in next to last. Whooops...........I didn't lie (it was only a two man race)......I just left out that important piece of information. So, now Jeff would think that I was a pretty good runner and that Dan was struggling with the race.
Keeping that concept in mind I will now proceed with what I wanted to say.
Recently the Dispatch wrote an article "Council Disagrees Over Employee Benefits"
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/jan/06/council-disagrees-over-employee-benefits/
The article pretty much heavies in on Kevin Straub (something I myself have done in the past).
What the readers wanted to know was why was the Dispatch so "soft" on the article "Council continues to be at odds on many topics"
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2009/dec/15/council-continues-be-odds-many-topics/
They were thinking "soft" when compared to my blog entry of 12/20/2009 "Kuhn Doesn't Get It" In the Dispatch article it was reported "Council members also argued if it was appropriate to allow a citizen, rather than city staff present information about bans on the use of cell phones and other handheld devices while driving......"
No mention was made by the Dispatch that Dawn Kuhn's actions came real close to leaving the research (and associated time and costs) for this subject in the hands of city staff. What the readers wanted to know (and I was really the wrong person to be asked) is why didn't the Dispatch get on Kuhn's case for her diva antics on this issue (which also wasted about 30 minutes of council time).
My only response to the readers is that the Dispatch article was truthful, just not in depth. Now, nobody is perfect, especially and including Dawn Kuhn. But if you search the Dispatch I doubt if you will ever find an article that puts Kuhn in a bad light. Is it possible for a reporter to get too close to their subject(s)? Yes, because contrary to popular belief, reporters are human. My personal thoughts........in a city the size of Shawnee, government reporters need to be rotated periodically.
Do you have a comment about this item? Post that comment here:
http://shawneeray.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=blog&thread=34
